In the field of spinal surgery, many treatment options exist to treat spinal pain, nerve impingement and spinal instability where a natural disc has failed in whole or in part. One such treatment is the removal of a damaged disc and its replacement with an intervertebral spacer which promotes fusion of bone between the separated vertebral bodies. This type of procedure when successfully completed, will result in a large bone mass between the vertebral bodies which will stabilize the column to a fixed position. See FIG. 1 where adjacent vertebral bodies 7 and 8 have been bridged with a solid mass of fused bone 9. This procedure is hereinafter referred to as rigid fusion. Also, see U.S. Pat. No. 6,447,547 to Michelson which discloses a spinal disc spacer intended to be infused with a solid, relatively motionless mass like FIG. 1. The success of a rigid fusion procedure appears to be one of many causes of adjacent segment disease. The lack of motion and the transfer of energy through the rigid fusion forces the adjacent structures to adjust to the higher loads and motions or fail. Adjacent segment disease occurs as they fail.
Ball and socket type disc arthroplasty devices have been tried for over 30 years. See U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,676,701 and 6,113,637. Their design rational is to allow motion in the hopes of reducing higher loads to adjacent structures. These have shown some success but also failures. A ball and socket type device requires no energy to rotate. Thus, the work absorbed by the device during rotation is zero. The rotation centers may be favorable at one specific instantaneous center of rotation present in a natural healthy disc, but is never correct nor favorable for all movements. This forces abnormal loads on adjacent structures. Materials needed for a stable ball and socket device are often very stiff or incompressible, thus any axial loads and especially shock loads through the device are almost completely transferred to the adjacent structures. A patient expecting a favorable outcome with a ball and socket lumbar disc arthroplasty device may find unfavorable results if repeated axial loads/shocks (along the spine axis) are a common occurrence.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,309,777 to Patil, discloses a artificial disc with internal springs intended to flex. The device relies solely on the internal springs to provide the mechanical flexing motion. U.S. Pat. No. 5,320,644 to Baumgartner, discloses a different type of a mechanical flexing device. This device uses overlapping parallel slits forming leaf springs, which may contact in abrupt load paths, yielding impact stress. U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,296,664, 6,315,797 and 6,656,224 to Middleton, attempt to solve the disadvantage of abrupt load paths with a device containing a pattern of slits to allow for a more continuous load path. Middleton's device further includes a large internal cavity defined by the exterior wall. The internal cavity may be packed with bone to rigidly fuse adjacent vertebral bodies or capped with opposing plugs which limit the device's motion. Middleton's devices are intended to have a continuous load path with no abrupt load stops. These devices must be sufficiently stiff to support the anatomical average and extreme loads, thus too stiff to provide soft fusion as defined hereinafter. U.S. Pat. No. 6,736,850, to Davis, discloses a pseudoathrosis device containing small (0.25 to 2 mm inner diameter), flexible, permeable material tubes as to allow fibrous ingrowth. This device is very soft and may collapse under normal loads and will likely not form bone within the small inner diameters.
See published application nos. US20060217809A1; US20060200243A1; US20060200242A1; US20060200241A1; US20060200240A1; and US20060200239A1. It is the apparent attempt of the intervertebral prosthetic discs disclosed in these latter publications, to restore full intervertebral motion. However, these devices, as a result of their design, would be soft and very flexible resulting in artificial discs capable of absorbing little energy when subjected to shock loads. Computer simulations and mechanical validations of discs obviously patterned after some of these designs showed that it takes minimal loads (e.g., less than about 5 lbs for the cervical and less than 20 lbs for the lumbar) to compress the devices. While the weight required to be supported by an individual's spinal column will, to a great extent, depend on the individual's size, the weight to be supported in the cervical, thoracic and lumbar regions, will range from about 5 to 30 lbs, 30 to 60 lbs and 60 to 150 lbs or more in the cervical, thoracic and lumbar regions, respectively. Computer simulations also demonstrated that the use of a spiral slot or slit extending from the outer to the inner wall and encircling the disc two or more times as is illustrated in some of the publications is probably the reason for this lack of stiffness. A device which is too soft, will fully collapse when the patient is vertical, allowing for no additional movement to absorb impact energy. These types of soft spring devices, believed to have a stiffness of about 2.0 newtons (N)/mm, for use in the cervical region, and about 22.0N/mm in the lumbar region. Some of the patents/publications do show a vertical hole in the device, but apparently it came about for manufacturing purposes not for functionality. These patents do not describe or imply an intended fusion.
Several of the above references disclose the use of mechanical springs or bellows as the means to separate adjacent vertebrae while providing movement therebetween during flexure and extension. Such spring arrangements, beside their other problems, such as fracture at attachment points to end plates, provide little shock and energy absorption capability because they either fully compress at normal loads, or fracture at high loads.
There is a need for an intervertebral disc replacement or spacer for simulating the motion and energy shock absorption characteristics of a natural disc. To this end my novel intervertebral disc and method relies on a combination of mechanical flexure elements and bone and/or soft tissue infiltration within the disc to accommodate such motion and energy absorption.